VW engine will be the first 4-cylinder in the industry to use cylinder deactivation tech

With more
stringent fuel economy standards looming in the U.S. and elsewhere, auto manufacturers
are looking to pull out all the stops to improve economy as much as possible.
Carmakers are turning to technology like direct injection and automatic start/stop.
Several automakers are also using cylinder deactivation on their larger
engines.

Cylinder deactivation is something that some carmakers in the U.S. and abroad
have used for years. Chrysler has used the technology in its Hemi engines,
Honda uses it on some of its V6 models, and Audi will use cylinder deactivation
in its new
line of “S” performance models.

VW is set
to make a first in the automotive market by offering cylinder deactivation on its 4-cylinder
models.

The VW tech will turn off two engine cylinders under certain conditions. The
engine is called the 1.4L TSI and VW promises that it will offer a fuel
savings of 0.4-liters/100km and when combined with start/stop technology the
vehicle would save 0.6-liters of fuel. For those more familiar with U.S. mpg
ratings, that works out to an improvement of in the range of 3 to 4.5 mpg on average.

The engine would turn off two of the cylinders under low to medium loads, and
VW says that the tech will meet the future European EU6 emissions standards.
The cylinders will be deactivated when the engine is operating between 1,400
and 4,000 rpm and the engine torque is in the range of 25 to 75Nm.

VW claims that operating range applies to about 70 percent of the driving
distance in the EU fuel economy driving cycle. VW also points out that as soon
as the driver presses the pedal the cylinders will reactivate without the
driver being able to tell it happened. The cylinders also would not turn off if
the vehicle were being driven in a sporty manner apparently.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: 3) It's less profitable for manufacturers to make automobiles that, given today's material and manufacturing improvements, wouldn't break so often anymore and would be inexpensive to fix if the complexity weren't increased.

Uh excuse me, but the average lifespan of a tie rod on a Chrysler 300 is about 30K miles. (Ask your local dealer if you doubt this.) Complexity isn't the problem here, so why does it break so often? Your should understand why when the dealer tells you "30K miles is normal."

It's not the complexity that makes many cars unreliable, it's the attitude.

You get 30k miles on your tierod??? I'm jealous I've got an 08 Wrangler. I get 9k on my ball joints, wheel bearings at 15k, and a differential that sucks in water at every puddle. Oh, let's not forget the MINIVAN engine on a vehicle shaped like a brick. Oh yeah and the transmission that runs too hot from the factory, with no sensor to warn you that you're overheating... you only find out after you've caught fire. Or the transmission cooler that was designed to leak oil. I could go on all day about how much I'd love to punch a Chrysler engineer in the balls.

I only bought the Jeep because it was a Jeep and because I can replace every part of it with a 3rd party. The only decent factory part is the frame... but I'm sure it sucks too. I wish they had sold it to Toyota. I curse those Chrysler pricks every time I work on the heap. Who in their right mind would decide to put 17mm bolts on one shock, and 7/8ths bolts on the other (on the rear). Who in their right mind would decide that a 16mm bolt is close enough to a 9/16th bolt hole on the track bar and control arms, thus destroying the bolt holes? Oh, a Chrysler engineer would.

A "service person" mostly sees cars that people bring to them to repair. If a component didn't break then the "service person" wouldn't see it often. At this point most know better than to buy Chryslers.

Didn't you sort of align with what I wrote? That even after all these years of supposed refinements they find a more complex way (versus reuse of existing tie rod design with reasonable part lifespan) to make one more failure prone?

On the other hand, if you take the same sized car and weigh it down with (more complexity) safety improving features, you're putting more stress on the suspension, steering, etc.

All cars have their weak links though, and to some extent the weakest one is owners who drive like a bat out of hell thanks to their car having a peppy engine.